A.M. No. MTJ-05-1609 - TRINIDAD O. LACHICA v. JUDGE ROSABELLA M.

TORMIS

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. NO. MTJ-05-1609 : February 28, 2006]
TRINIDAD O. LACHICA, Complainant, v. JUDGE ROSABELLA M.
TORMIS, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4, Cebu City,
Respondent.
RESOLUTION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This resolves the Memorandum/Supplement to the Manifestation of
respondent Judge Rosabella M. Tormis seeking for a reinvestigation of the
administrative case filed against her and to be allowed to present
additional evidence thereto.
In the Court's Decision dated September 20, 2005, respondent judge was
found guilty of gross misconduct, suspended from office for six months
without salary and other benefits and sternly warned that a repetition of
the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
The record shows that the case was initially referred to Executive Judge
Simeon P. Dumdum, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City for
investigation, report and recommendation in a Resolution dated August
02, 2004.1
In compliance with the foregoing directive, the Investigating Judge
submitted the Report dated November 18, 20042 with the
recommendation that respondent judge be fined P20,000.00 or
suspended for three months.3
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concurred with the findings of
the Investigating Judge but recommended that respondent judge be
suspended for three months.4
Thereafter, the Court issued a Resolution dated August 3, 2005 requiring
the parties to manifest within five days from notice if they were willing to
submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed. 5
Subsequently, the Court issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2005 6
where it resolved to re-docket the case as a regular administrative case;
and dispense with the manifestations of both parties submitting the case
for resolution based on the pleadings filed.
On September 20, 2005, the Court promulgated its Decision 7 finding
respondent judge guilty of gross misconduct and suspending her from

office for six months.

It appears from the record8 that even before her receipt of a copy of the
above-mentioned judgment, the same had been downloaded from the
web site of the Court and disseminated to the local media. Indeed,
respondent judge was apprised by her staff that her six-month
suspension was bannered by the Freeman, a local newspaper, in its
September 23, 2005 issue.9 The Banat News, a sister publication of the
Freeman published in the local dialect likewise made reference to the
decision and called for respondent's ouster from the judiciary in its
September 24, 2005 issue.10 These publications compelled respondent to
send a letter addressed to the Clerk of Court of the First Division
requesting for a certified true copy of the judgment. 11
In the afternoon of September 28, 2005, respondent judge received a
copy of the Resolution dated August 3, 2005 12 requiring the parties to
manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for resolution
based on the pleadings filed. This led respondent judge to conclude that
the case had not yet been resolved and the judgment promulgated, thus,
she filed a Manifestation on the same date 13 praying for a reinvestigation
and to be allowed to adduce evidence thereat. 14
On October 7, 2005,15 the Court received a copy of respondent's
Memorandum/Supplement to the Manifestation16 dated October 3, 2005
explaining in detail her reasons for seeking a reinvestigation.
It must be stressed that the essence of due process in administrative
proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side or seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. 17 Owing to the
foregoing confluence of events aggravated by the delay in our postal
system, the Court is inclined to grant the request of respondent judge.
In an administrative case, if the respondent judge must be disciplined for
grave misconduct or any grave offense, the evidence against the
miscreant magistrate should be competent and should be derived from
direct knowledge.18 The Judiciary to which the respondent belongs
demands no less. Before any of its members could be faulted, it should
only be after due investigation and after presentation of the required
quantum of evidence especially because the charge is punitive by
nature.19
Any administrative complaint leveled against a judge must be examined
with a discriminating eye for its consequential effects are by nature penal
in character, such that the respondent judge stands to face the sanction
of dismissal, disbarment, or suspension. As champion - at other times
tormentor - of trial and appellate judges, this Court must be unrelenting
in weeding the judiciary of unscrupulous magistrates, but it must also be
quick in dismissing administrative complaints which serve no other

purpose than to harass them.20

It has been said "[t]he wheels of justice would run smoothly not only if
the judiciary is purged of the debilitating presence of recreant judges, but
also importantly, if the members who perform their functions
conscientiously are not hampered by groundless and vexatious charges.
In its attempt to cleanse the Aegean stables, so to speak, this Court must
tread on with utmost circumspection and prudence to make sure that
only the guilty is denounced and the innocent absolved." 21 It must be
stressed in this regard that in cases where the charges involved are
misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption or incompetency, the
general rules as to admissibility of evidence in criminal trials apply and
the culpability of the respondent should be established beyond
reasonable doubt.22
Thus, as in criminal cases where the dictates of due process is observed
with utmost stringence, the respondent judge in this administrative
complaint should likewise be given full opportunity upon reasonable
notice23 to defend herself and to adduce evidence in support thereof for
the Court will not allow itself to be an instrument that would destroy the
reputation of any member of the bench by pronouncing guilt on the basis
of incomplete evidence or mere speculation. 24
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the motion of respondent Judge
Rosabella M. Tormis, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4, Cebu City
for a reinvestigation of the above-captioned case is GRANTED. The
records of the case are ordered REMANDED to the Office of the Executive
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.